Friday, February 21, 2014

The mandate that there should be only one
ecclesiastical jurisdiction in each geographical area was the first canon of
the Council of Nicaea in 325.It
was part of the wedding of the church to the Roman Empire.Just as, in an empire, there cannot be
more than one political jurisdiction in any geographical area, it was thought
that this principle should be extended to the church, for the sake of unity.

This regime lasted for well over a thousand
years, until it disintegrated with the rise of secularism.Secularism’s separation of church and
State led to denominationalism: the practice of having more than one Christian
ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the same geographical area (for example,
Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Romans Catholics, Baptists, etc.).It is in fact rare for a town in
America to have churches of only one denomination, or even religion.Most denominations have recognized this
fact and learned at least to coexist, and often cooperate.A few extreme and eccentric denominations
do still claim to be the One True Church; but these are mostly dismissed as the
cranks they are.

Most denominations also abandoned “parish
boundaries” – the practice of everyone in the same geographical district
attending the same church – long ago.We recognize that there can be two congregations of the same
denomination in the same geographical area.It is not unusual for Presbyterians to drive past one or
more Presbyterian churches to get to the one they prefer… not to mention all
the churches of other denominations they pass.It would be unthinkable to somehow require people to only
attend the church serving the geographical area to which they belong.

So the principle of non-geographicality is
already established both by the existence of many denominational jurisdictions
in a single geographical area, and the disappearance of parish boundaries even
within denominations.Indeed, in
the Presbyterian Church (USA) we have several non-geographical presbyteries
now.These serve specific ethnic
and linguistic communities (Koreans and Native Americans).But the principle is now established
that geographical jurisdictions are not necessary and may be overridden by
missional concerns.

Why can’t we extend this principle to
congregations and their relationship to presbyteries, and to presbyteries and
their relationship to each other?Why
can’t we encourage churches to work formally together and relate to one another
even across denominational lines?

Why, for instance, can a church not align
itself for mutual support and encouragement with other churches that
understand, appreciate, and share the same missional approach?Why should a church be regularly
stifled in its mission because the other churches of its denomination in its
region don’t understand or support what they are doing?Especially in close packed urban areas
like New Jersey, why should a presbytery have geographical boundaries, when
there might be missionally like-minded congregations all over the State who
would do better working together?Why should we not work with churches from other denominations?And why should presbyteries, or
whatever we might call such intermediate gatherings of churches from several
denominations, not relate to each other nationally according to their missional
needs and opportunities?

In other words, what is the big deal about
geography that it should override the requirements of effective mission?Is not geographical unity a holdover
from the imperialist model?Or, at
best, from a time when transportation and communication options were far more
limited, and distinctive denominational identities more secure, than they are
today?

Yes, if we were to de-geographicalize the
church, many denominations would cease to exist in their current forms.But that’s happening anyway.What would emerge is a looser, more
fluid system of connections between churches.Each network would agree to its own rules and ways of
operating and affiliating.Certainly there would be traditionalists persisting in more conventional
arrangements. And there might even
be congregations living in disconnected independence, if they choose. The days of ecclesiastical one-size-fits-all
approaches are officially over.

In any case, this is already happening.Many Christians are finding a lot more
juice in attending conferences with like-minded disciples from across the
denominational spectrum, than in official, denominational meetings.The latter often tend to be so
“diverse” in terms of every measurement that their vision and mission are
chronically compromised, and they wind up aiming for the lowest common
denominator.Which can be pretty
low.Many main-line denominations
have been paralyzed by a debilitating and inconclusive debate over the status
of GLBT Christians for 40 years.

The danger, of course, is that like-minded
missional gatherings will become over-specialized, homogenous ghettos, deaf to
other voices of creativity and balance.This liability is largely remedied by having smaller networks engage in
larger, more inclusive, “higher” gatherings.I hope that someday all the followers of Jesus would be
organically connected in this way.Separating from geography might thereby even serve the larger cause of
Christian unity.

So, maybe it’s time to make the jump to an
ecclesiastical model where alliances and relationships are formed according to
missional considerations, rather than by the fact that churches happen to
inhabit the same geographical area.